P5-S6.36 Factors affecting quality of life of people living with HIV In Karnataka, India
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In India, stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings, poor linkages between services and lack of trained personnel affect the quality and accessibility of HIV services. In effort to both scale up and strengthen the quality and coordination of HIV care and support services in the state of Karnataka, the Samastha Project was developed. This enhanced care model uses a district based approach which integrates government services with project-based care and support services. Quality of life (QOL) is a critical outcome of HIV intervention. There is little data on the effect of HIV care and support services on QOL. We used baseline data from a 2-year prospective cohort study (QOL-Cohort study) of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in the Samastha program to identify factors affecting QOL among PLHIV. Methods We conducted Factorial analysis using a set of key variables assumed to be associated with QOL to develop a factor score from the data collected by a face-to-face interview using a standardised questionnaire from QOL cohort study. Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted using the factor score as dependent variable. High factor score indicated high QOL. Age, gender, locality and intensity of exposure to Samastha program were considered a priori independent variables. Factors which were associated with the outcome variable and at least one a priori independent variable were included in the final model for multivariate analysis. Results Gender, marital status, type of housing and occupation were significantly associated with quality of life of PLHIV. Mean score (QOL) is 16.6% (ß=−0.166, 95% CI −0.31 to −0.02) lower among men compared to women. It is 31.8% (ß=−0.318, 95% CI −0.19 to −0.08) lower among widowed/divorced/separated PLHIV compared to currently married PLHIV. Mean score (QOL) is significantly lower among PLHIV who do not have a perceptible income source (ß=−0.20, 95% CI −0.36 to −0.04) compared to those with steady income. PLHIV who live in Kuccha (house built of temporary material) houses (ß=−0.26, 95% CI −0.38 to −0.14) had a significantly higher mean QOL score compared to those living in Pucca (house built of permanent material) house. Intensity of program exposure was not associated with QOL of PLHIV in this baseline survey see Abstract P5-S6.36 table 1. Abstract P5-S6.36 Table 1 Factors associated with Quality of life of People living with HIV in Karnataka, India- Quality of life Cohort Study—2010–2011 Factor score as dependant variable β-Coefficient* p Value 95% CI Age Age in years −0.002 0.549 −0.01 to 0.004 Gender Female Reference Male −0.17 0.022 −0.31 to −0.02 Locality Urban Reference Rural −0.05 0.447 −0.19 to 0.09 Exposure to program Low Reference High 0.02 0.677 −0.09 to −0.13 Marital status Currently married Reference Widowed/Seperated/Divorced −0.32 <0.0001 −0.45 to −0.19 Never married/Devadasi −0.26 0.046 −0.51 to −0.01 Literacy Illiterate Reference Literate 0.1 0.092 −0.02 to 0.22 Source of Income Steady income Reference Irregular income 0.01 0.903 −0.13 to 0.15 No perceptible source of income −0.2 0.014 −0.36 to −0.04 Type of housing Pucca Reference Kuccha −0.26 <0.0001 −0.38 to −0.14 Constant 0.37 0.01 0.09 to 0.64 * Adjusted for all other factors in the table. Conclusions Illiteracy, male gender, no perceptible source of income, living in a Kuccha house and being widowed, divorced or separated are associated with poor QOL among PLHIV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it